Walmart in an act of pure altruism gives out raises to the beloved employees. (Sarcasm)

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-walma...ul-petrone

Quote:The decision comes after a wave of protests about the wages Walmart and other retail giants pay their employees and the benefits – or, perhaps more accurately, the lack thereof - they offer.

Not a bone, crumbs. $9 an hour for a single person with no kids living in a cheap rural area as long as they are working full time would work. But for most workers they are full of shit if they think even $9 in most areas is a livable wage.

Politicians giving tax benefits to corporations is perfectly fine and is supposed to increase productivity. Unions and groups of workers battling for livable wages is wrong. How hard must it be to pay someone a decent salary?

Very hard for Walmart, they triple dip on public assistance - an actual welfare queen. They simply cannot/will not do business any other way.
-Subsidy pays a portion of the cost of items on their shelves
-Subsidy pays for their products at the register
-Subsidy offsets the labor cost of their employees (who will also spend their portion of subsidies at their place of employment).

Hell, Wally World is pretty much a state commissary, if you ask me- between the tax breaks, ebt, snap, and consignment stocking.....money doesn't really move at walmart until something is rung up, if then.

(February 23, 2015 at 10:45 am)Dystopia Wrote: Politicians giving tax benefits to corporations is perfectly fine and is supposed to increase productivity. Unions and groups of workers battling for livable wages is wrong. How hard must it be to pay someone a decent salary?

It does increase productivity, but not healthy productivity. The productivity they perpetuate is merely more slavery. It is healthy for the CEOs and shareholders but the pay makes the worker work longer for less pay.

(February 23, 2015 at 7:53 am)Brian37 Wrote: Not a bone, crumbs. $9 an hour for a single person with no kids living in a cheap rural area as long as they are working full time would work. But for most workers they are full of shit if they think even $9 in most areas is a livable wage.

I have a relative collecting a nice pension and is working at Wallyworld.

Although I'm annoyed, I'm not clear myself why. She's taking a job of someone who probably really needs the paycheck. Also, she's double dipping, so to speak, and I'm wondering what she needs all the money for. Putting reading the thread, maybe I shouldn't be.

Additionally, if Wallyworld is shamed into giving her benefits, how does that work with what she is already getting with Medicare?? Is she really preying on the system ?

(February 23, 2015 at 11:35 am)vorlon13 Wrote: I have a relative collecting a nice pension and is working at Wallyworld.

Although I'm annoyed, I'm not clear myself why. She's taking a job of someone who probably really needs the paycheck. Also, she's double dipping, so to speak, and I'm wondering what she needs all the money for. Putting reading the thread, maybe I shouldn't be.

Additionally, if Wallyworld is shamed into giving her benefits, how does that work with what she is already getting with Medicare?? Is she really preying on the system ?

I'm really not sure why either. How is working and taking a pension she earned by working earlier double dipping? And why should she stopping making more money just because you think she has enough?

(February 23, 2015 at 11:47 am)Jenny A Wrote:

(February 23, 2015 at 11:35 am)vorlon13 Wrote: I have a relative collecting a nice pension and is working at Wallyworld.

Although I'm annoyed, I'm not clear myself why. She's taking a job of someone who probably really needs the paycheck. Also, she's double dipping, so to speak, and I'm wondering what she needs all the money for. Putting reading the thread, maybe I shouldn't be.

Additionally, if Wallyworld is shamed into giving her benefits, how does that work with what she is already getting with Medicare?? Is she really preying on the system ?

I'm really not sure why either. How is working and taking a pension she earned by working earlier double dipping? And why should she stopping making more money just because you think she has enough?

Why should the rich get to decide what workers make? Oh and do you seriously think 1 billion, or 10 billion or 80 billion is poverty? Oh, it isn't? The the issue isn't wealth , it is lack of introspection. No one is trying to claim inequity should not exist at all. But only an idiot who has way more than they could possibly need would think that isn't enough.

In a secular society no one group, in political party, in religion, or class gets to dictate to everyone else. So my suggestion to the uber rich is if they want government off their back then paying their share and paying directly to workers instead of corporate welfare would be a better tactic. But if they chose not to do that, the other classes have the same right to vote for their own self interests.

Now you can deal with reality or not, your choice. But no one owes the rich submission anymore than we owe religion submission.

Coming from a middle class family, the rich and conservatives seriously need to stop saying to poor people that if they weren't so lazy and worked harder it would all be alright. If you've never been poor please refrain from making idiotic generalizations and minimizing trouble people face. There are no equal opportunities, people are conditioned since birth, and poor people are no exception

(February 23, 2015 at 12:01 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(February 23, 2015 at 11:47 am)Jenny A Wrote: I'm really not sure why either. How is working and taking a pension she earned by working earlier double dipping? And why should she stopping making more money just because you think she has enough?

Why should the rich get to decide what workers make? Oh and do you seriously think 1 billion, or 10 billion or 80 billion is poverty? Oh, it isn't? The the issue isn't wealth , it is lack of introspection. No one is trying to claim inequity should not exist at all. But only an idiot who has way more than they could possibly need would think that isn't enough.

In a secular society no one group, in political party, in religion, or class gets to dictate to everyone else. So my suggestion to the uber rich is if they want government off their back then paying their share and paying directly to workers instead of corporate welfare would be a better tactic. But if they chose not to do that, the other classes have the same right to vote for their own self interests.

Now you can deal with reality or not, your choice. But no one owes the rich submission anymore than we owe religion submission.

Did you actually read my post Brian? I was addressing Vorlon13's suggestion that his relative should not work there because by doing so she might deprive others of a job at Walmart.

I said nothing whatsoever about whether Walmart wages are fair.

At least read before you jerk your knee.